Why We Don’t Ask The Essential EU Debate Question

Why are we even thinking about leaving? Why is the question on the table the over-simplistic ‘In or Out’ when the issue and realities concerning the UK’s relationship with Europe and the EU are far, far more complex? The answer lies somewhere in the difference of interest and benefit that individuals have in the EU against the interests and benefits that the individual nation states have in the EU. If the EU is ever constructed correctly, it brings power to the person at the cost to the nation state. The evidence for such a claim is in the legislation passed at EU level and fought against by the UK government.

The Working Time Directive – which stops employers over-working-their staff – is a right that the British Government negotiated a partial opt-out of to the benefit of employers and at the detriment of employees. And of course, the infamous Human Rights Act. An act whose very title gives the strongest indication of its importance. An act that protects in law the right to have a family, the right to political and religious freedom, the right to join a union, the right to a fair trial, and the right to assembly, amongst others; all of which British governments have fought against.

The UK government has a very affective weapon in its fight to protect its own vested interests against the EU; that weapon is the island mentality of its people. It is the easiest ploy in the world to convince the Brits, still hungover from the Dunkirk, spirit that their easily definable green and sceptred isle is one to defend against the marauding Eurocrats. The Brits are fooled into thinking only the UK government can protect its people, and that Europe represents a stripping away of the rights of the individual. The opposite is true on both counts.

The UK government, like all state governments in the EU, has less ability to make a real difference to the lives of its citizens. Local councils have real effect over our day-to-day lives: The big things can only be handled at international level. One only has to look at tax-paying activities of Amazon and Google to see that no individual country in the EU could take on these Internet giants alone. Organised crime, the environment and even national defence are three other examples of concern beyond the reach of mere nation states.

The EU has its faults, but that does not mean the IN/Out debate is justified. As Cameron, the British Prime Minister, goes to Europe to discuss a new relationship between the UK and the EU, the British people are denied any say in what that relationship should be; therefore denied any influence in the agreement – should there be one.

There is no debate as to whether the European people should elect the President of the EU Commission (the most powerful position in the institution). There is no discussion as to how the EU parliament (the only institution elected by the European people) can be made more powerful. Should it, for example, be able to propose EU laws? Neither government nor media is mooting the idea of the people choosing the EU commissioners (affectively, the EU cabinet) rather than the President of the Commission, which is the case now.

In other words: The question on how to improve the EU for the benefit of the people. That is something the UK government would never call for, because it is not in their interest to do so.